You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Generally, as a huge pain in the ass. Si is hard enough for a lot of people to stomach in the dominant position due to its devaluing nature, and ISxJs have so much practice and experience at that.

INxPs who take the time to understand and balance their aux Ne with their tertiary Si may find therein a new capacity for reflective thought, which counters Ne's impulse to leap to a "new" conclusion. ISTJ statement warning: often the correct solution is the one that's been done to death. It was done to death because it works.

Generally, as a huge pain in the ass. Si is hard enough for a lot of people to stomach in the dominant position due to its devaluing nature, and ISxJs have so much practice and experience at that.

INxPs who take the time to understand and balance their aux Ne with their tertiary Si may find therein a new capacity for reflective thought, which counters Ne's impulse to leap to a "new" conclusion. ISTJ statement warning: often the correct solution is the one that's been done to death. It was done to death because it works.

Hmm...
Would you say that Si has a tendency to make "rules"? Would you at all relate this function to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder/Personality Disorder?

Hmm...
Would you say that Si has a tendency to make "rules"? Would you at all relate this function to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder/Personality Disorder?

Si is all about subjective perception. The average Si user perceives the world through a veil or "shell" of impressions that are made up of their experiences. Si makes rules in the sense that it layers these impressions on top of everything, and decides that things not only are supposed to be a certain way, but they actually ARE a certain way. They're more laws of physics, in this sense, than rules.

Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest

Why is Si in the tertiary a pain in the ass? Could you explain that further?

Average to unhealthy Si doms are known for their inability to reach or touch who or what is really there, instead focusing on what they imagine. Tertiary Si is unlikely to be much more than a sink to the objectivity of aux Ne in my opinion, and when it pops up, I imagine it would be ugly.

Si is all about subjective perception. The average Si user perceives the world through a veil or "shell" of impressions that are made up of their experiences. Si makes rules in the sense that it layers these impressions on top of everything, and decides that things not only are supposed to be a certain way, but they actually ARE a certain way. They're more laws of physics, in this sense, than rules.

Average to unhealthy Si doms are known for their inability to reach or touch who or what is really there, instead focusing on what they imagine. Tertiary Si is unlikely to be much more than a sink to the objectivity of aux Ne in my opinion, and when it pops up, I imagine it would be ugly.

I understand what you're saying to a degree, but do you maybe have a more concrete example of how this might show in an INFP or INTP. Sorry if I am being a pest.

Generally, as a huge pain in the ass. Si is hard enough for a lot of people to stomach in the dominant position due to its devaluing nature, and ISxJs have so much practice and experience at that.

What do you mean by the bolded?

Originally Posted by Stephen

Si is all about subjective perception. The average Si user perceives the world through a veil or "shell" of impressions that are made up of their experiences. Si makes rules in the sense that it layers these impressions on top of everything, and decides that things not only are supposed to be a certain way, but they actually ARE a certain way. They're more laws of physics, in this sense, than rules.

Average to unhealthy Si doms are known for their inability to reach or touch who or what is really there, instead focusing on what they imagine.

This is fascinating. I get the sense that Si doms are much more in tune with reality than Ne doms. You seem to think otherwise? But, I mean, everyone is sort of shelled from reality. Everyone only has of reality what they perceive, which is never the full story. How do these Si impressions differ from Ne impressions in terms of how they change our day-to-day deciding and action-taking?

This is fascinating. I get the sense that Si doms are much more in tune with reality than Ne doms. You seem to think otherwise? But, I mean, everyone is sort of shelled from reality. Everyone only has of reality what they perceive, which is never the full story. How do these Si impressions differ from Ne impressions in terms of how they change our day-to-day deciding and action-taking?

Im not stephen but your quote here ties in nicely with my own questions based on reading Jung:

Is it true that Si is in fact more to do with an almost archetypal assemblage of personally experienced perceptions unique to each and every individual Si dom or user, rather than the collective memory bank of objective enforcement it is so often accused of being?

If this is true, is it fair to say that Si, far from being in touch with some objectively agreed on reality, is in fact more in touch with it's own personalised reality?

And then from this can I ask if this means that each and every Si dominant would actually be quite different depending on context and environment? Far from the adherence to standards of tradition or routine, they instead then adhere to their own traditions and routines which are once again of this personalised nature?

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

Generally, as a huge pain in the ass. Si is hard enough for a lot of people to stomach in the dominant position due to its devaluing nature, and ISxJs have so much practice and experience at that.

INxPs who take the time to understand and balance their aux Ne with their tertiary Si may find therein a new capacity for reflective thought, which counters Ne's impulse to leap to a "new" conclusion. ISTJ statement warning: often the correct solution is the one that's been done to death. It was done to death because it works.

Is it likely then for ENFP's in the grip of Si to cling to statements such as "that's how it's always been done", even when it's becoming clear that what has been done isn't really working?